Round Rules

Note: The NPDL Round Rules are formally part of the NPDL Legislative Code, but are displayed here as a separate webpage for ease of use.

XII.1: ROLES

A*. A debate consists of two teams. The Government team consists of two debaters - the Prime Minister and the Member of Government. The Opposition team consists of two debaters - the Leader of Opposition and the Member of Opposition.

B. The Government proposes a case to uphold the resolution. The Opposition opposes the Government’s case.

XII.2: RESOLUTIONS

A. Resolutions will be announced by the tournament at the start of preparation time.

B. A different resolution will be used each round.

XII.3: SPEECH TIME

A. Except for brief non-argumentative roadmaps and content warnings, speech time begins as soon as the debater begins speaking.

B. The judge shall not factor into their decision any arguments made by a debater outside of that debater's allotted speech time.

XII.4: FORMAT

A. Prime Minister Constructive (PMC): 7 minutes

B. Leader of Opposition Constructive (LOC): 8 minutes

C. Member of Government Constructive (MGC): 8 minutes

D. Member of Opposition Constructive (MOC): 8 minutes

E. Leader of Opposition Rebuttal (LOR): 4 minutes

F. Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR): 5 minutes

G*. Debaters have 20 minutes of preparation time between the time the resolution is announced and the time they report to their judge(s) to start the debate.

H. There is no preparation time between speeches.

XII.5: POINTS OF INFORMATION

A. A Point of Information (POI) is a single short (< 15 seconds) question that a member of the opposing team asks a debater giving a constructive speech.

B. The debater who has the floor may accept or decline each POI. A follow-up question is a separate POI.

C. Speech time does not stop during a POI.

D. Debaters may not raise POIs during protected time, which shall be the first and last minute of any constructive speech, unless invited to do so by the debater who has the floor.

XII.6: POINTS OF ORDER

A. A debater may state “Point of Order” to object to a new argument in a rebuttal speech. Time should then be stopped. The debater then has 15 seconds to explain why an argument made by the opposing team is new. The opposing team then has 15 seconds to respond to the Point of Order.

B. Judges may choose whether to announce their rulings on Points of Order. If there is a judge panel, judges may not announce their rulings on Points of Order during the round. Time shall resume immediately after a judge announces a ruling on a Point of Order. If the judge does not announce a ruling, time should resume immediately after the response is finished.

C. Judges should disregard new arguments (including new responses) during rebuttal speeches, regardless of whether a Point of Order was raised. The exception is that the PMR may respond to new arguments made in the MOC. Rephrasing or new analysis of prior arguments is allowed in rebuttal speeches.

XII.7: POINTS OF CLARIFICATION

A. A Point of Clarification is a question that a member of the opposing team asks a debater giving a PMC or an LOC. The question shall aim to clarify the speaker's advocacy or interpretation of the resolution.

B. The speaker may not decline a Point of Clarification.

C. Speech time stops for Points of Clarification and resumes once they are answered.

XII.8: COMMUNICATION DURING THE ROUND

A*. During the preparation time and the debate:

- a debater may not communicate with anyone other than their partner, their opponents, their judge(s), and tournament staff;

- judges and tournament staff may not help the debaters with their debate performance.

B. While a debater has the floor, they may communicate with their partner in writing, but not verbally.

C. A debater may communicate with their partner, both verbally and in writing, while their opponent has the floor, so long as this does not disrupt their opponent’s speech.

XII.9.1: MATERIALS ALLOWED IN IN-PERSON DEBATES

A*. Debaters are not allowed to access computers after preparation time ends (except a device used only as a timer and in “airplane mode” if available).

B*. A debater may access notes that were handwritten on paper by the debater or their partner after the resolution was announced. The debater may access notes that were handwritten on paper and given to them by the opposing team after the resolution was announced. The debater may access and refer to a printed copy of the tournament round rules. Other than that, the debater may not access any written material after preparation time ends.

XII.9.2: MATERIALS ALLOWED IN ONLINE DEBATES

A*. After preparation time ends, debaters may not access evidence not found during preparation time.

B. During the debate, debaters may access and refer to the tournament round rules.

XII.10: MATERIALS ALLOWED IN PREP

A. During preparation time, debaters may consult both physical and electronic copies of any material, including both prepared notes and published sources. Debaters may use computers and the internet to store and to retrieve this material.

XII.11: EVIDENCE

A. Debaters should primarily rely on logic and general knowledge.

B. Debaters should not cite published sources during the round. Judges should enforce this rule by giving a claim supported by a citation the same weight as they would give a claim not supported by a citation.

XII.12: JUDGE CONDUCT

A. The judge should award a win to the team that did the better debating.

B*. The judge must award a win to exactly one team.

C*. The judge may not confer with anyone when making their decision. The exception is that the judge may communicate with tournament staff to clarify rules.

D*. The judge must be present and conscious during all speeches.

E*. The judge may not interrupt any speech. The judge may not make verbal comments about any arguments in the debate before every judge in the round has selected the winning team on their ballot (except see 6.B). Judge comments are permissible as needed to address immediate technical or logistical issues.

F*. A judge should not judge a round for which they have a conflict (see XI.7).

XII.13: ENFORCEMENT

A. During the debate, these round rules shall be enforced by the judges. Judges should not direct students to deviate from these rules or encourage students to violate them.

B. Sub-sections also enforceable by the Protest Committee (see XIII.1) are marked with an asterisk.

XII.14: SCOPE

A. This Article shall be used at tournaments run by NPDL. The Board may, by a unanimous vote, modify these rules for a particular NPDL tournament held during that Board’s term.

B. Any tournament not run by NPDL may adopt the NPDL round rules. Such a tournament may specify in its invitation any round rules which deviate from the NPDL rules.

C. The tournament director may make exceptions to any of these round rules in order to accommodate persons with disabilities.

ARTICLE XIII: TOURNAMENT OPERATION

XIII.1: PROTEST COMMITTEE

A. Judge decisions about round outcomes shall be final, unless overruled by a majority vote of the Protest Committee.

B. Violations may be reported to the Protest Committee only by the coaches of the teams involved or by tournament staff.

C. When a protest occurs, the Protest Committee shall notify designated chaperones of all affected students prior to ruling on any actions associated with a protest. The Protest Committee shall vote in private as to the resolution of the protest, the result of which vote shall be binding and announced to all affected students and their designated chaperones.

D. In ruling on protests, the Protest Committee shall consider all facts and circumstances associated with the violation, including whether it

- was intentional;

- was unethical;

- whether, based on conversations with the judge(s), the violation appears to have affected the round outcome;

- violated the purpose behind a rule in addition to its express language.

E. The Protest Committee may impose any of the following consequences:

- issue a warning and/or reprimand, including a statement of consequences for a further violation;

- require the round be repeated under terms;

- impose a round forfeit on the team in violation; or

- disqualify the team in violation from the tournament.

F. If the team that filed the protest, and that lost a ballot, was put at a competitive disadvantage by the violation, the Protest Committee may reverse the ballot. If the violation did not create a competitive disadvantage, the loss shall stand.

G. In the event of a an egregious violation by a judge (see XII.12) that appears to have caused one team to receive a loss, the Protest Committee may additionally impose any of the following consequences:

- in a round with one judge, award both teams a BYE;

- if the round had two judges, disregard the ballot of the judge in violation, and count the other judge’s ballot twice (unless both judges committed an egregious violation, in which case both teams may be awarded a BYE).

H. In the event of an abnormal disruption to the debate round, which appears to have caused one team to receive a loss, and which was outside of the debaters’ control, the Protest Committee may

- require the round be repeated; or

- award both teams a BYE.

I. If a tournament does not have a Protest Committee, the Tournament Director may assume the functions of the Protest Committee.

XIII.2: TABULATION

A. Tabulation procedures shall be published on the tournament invitation prior to the start of the tournament. Any change in procedures mid-tournament due to constraints of the field, judges, or brackets, shall be immediately reported to all competitors.

B. Elimination brackets shall not be broken to prevent same-school competitors from hitting one another. The coach/adult chaperon (or coaches, in the case of hybrids) shall determine whether a debate will take place or, if not, which team will advance.

XIII.3: TOPIC AREAS

A. A topic area is announced prior to the start of the tournament. It allows students to research for a resolution, but does not disclose the wording of that resolution.

B. A minimum of one and a maximum of two preliminary rounds shall use topic areas. If there are two topic area rounds, they may share a topic area or use two different topic areas.

C. If a topic area round has multiple resolutions or flights, all shall be based on the same topic area.

XIII.4: JUDGE CONFLICTS

A. A judge may not judge a student if the judge and the student may be perceived to have a competitive or financial agreement that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round. Examples include but are not limited to the following: 

- The student attends a school (or a collaboration of schools) that the judge attended, coached for, or competed with in the past six years.  

- The judge has a paid or unpaid coaching, consulting, or judging relationship with the student or school during the same academic year. NOTE: Serving as a tournament-hired judge does not constitute a conflict of interest. 

- The judge is involved in ongoing negotiations to provide future paid or unpaid coaching, consulting, or judging to a school or student, or otherwise anticipates providing such coaching.

- The judge has provided exclusive pre-round preparation to a student either before or during a tournament through any method including electronically, verbally, or through the transfer of resources. NOTE: Sharing of information does not constitute preparation, but the discussion of strategies, arguments, evidence, etc., would constitute preparation. If such preparation is provided during a tournament, the judge should immediately (before pairings are released) recuse themself from judging the student they prepared for the rest of the tournament. In general, scrimmage/practice rounds between schools do not create conflicts, but if a given person frequently (more than five times in the preceding six months) judges and gives feedback to a student from another school in a scrimmage round, the judge is conflicted against judging that student at a tournament. An oral RFD (reason for decision) given after a round to which the tournament assigned the judge and the student does not constitute “preparation” for purposes of this rule.

- The judge was a paid staff member at a summer debate institution (or winter or spring debate institution of at least five-day duration) during the same summer (or winter or spring) that the student attended the institution, or has been hired to be on staff for the upcoming summer and is aware that the student will attend during that summer.

B. A judge may not judge a student if the judge and the student may be perceived to have a personal or social arrangement that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round. Examples include but are not limited to the following:

- The judge and the student may be perceived to have had a personal relationship that may bias the judge’s impartial evaluation of the round.

- The judge and the student are or have been in a familial, physical, or emotional relationship.

- The judge and the student have communications of a personal nature over email, telephone, or the internet including social networking sites that goes beyond casual exchanges. For example, communications that are extensive and/or repetitive may create a conflict. Judges who socialize with the student outside of the competition arena are considered to have established a personal or social relationship with that student. 

C.  A judge may not judge a student if the judge does not believe they are able to fairly and impartially adjudicate a competition involving a particular student for whatever reason. 

D. A judge may choose to recuse from adjudicating a student under the following conditions: if the judge shares transportation and/or lodging with the student’s team on a regular basis, or if the judge has a personal, financial, or familial relationship with the student’s coach or member of the student’s family. It is the affirmative duty of the judge to make such information publicly available prior to the round beginning. 

E. The expectation of competitors, judges, and coaches is to engage in the highest levels of professionalism and integrity. While the responsibility is on judges to aide transparency, coaches and student competitors should as well. It is the affirmative duty of all coaches and debaters to assist efforts in transparency.

XIII.5: FLEX TIME [NOT CURRENTLY IN FORCE]

A. Each team will be given 2 minutes of flex time, to be used in any allotment before any of their speeches, during which they may choose to prepare their next speech or ask their opponents questions.

B. Section A shall only take effect at tournaments run by NPDL once at least three of the following add flex time or cross-examination to its parliamentary debate rules: CHSSA, OSAA, NYPDL, Yale Invitational, Stanford Invitational, Jack Howe Memorial Tournament, Jean Ward Invitational.

XIII.6: SCOPE

This Article shall be used at tournaments run by NPDL. The Board may, by a unanimous vote, modify these rules for a particular NPDL tournament held during that Board’s term.

ARTICLE XIV: EQUITY

XIV.1: TIMING

A. The Board shall adopt a Code of Conduct in alignment with the NPDL Non-Discrimination Policy (see I.3).

B. The Board shall appoint the Equity Officer for the tournament. The Equity Officer may not hold any other staff position at that tournament.

C. The Board or tournament director shall announce the Equity Officer and the Code of Conduct no later than 7 days prior to the tournament, unless a different deadline applies (e.g., see XI.6.F).

XIV.2: CODE OF CONDUCT

A. Any Code of Conduct implemented under this section shall ensure that all participants at the relevant edition of an NPDL-organized tournament:

- have opportunities equal with other participants to have their needs accommodated in order to participate in the NPDL-organized tournament;

- are not prevented from accessing these opportunities by discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, ethnicity, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability;

- are free from harassment and intimidation during their participation in the NPDL-organized tournament; and

- have access to reporting mechanisms in the event that these standards are violated.

B. Any Code of Conduct implemented under this section shall include but is not limited to provisions that describe:

- the principles of the NPDL Non-Discrimination Policy;

- the expected conduct of all participants;

- enforcement, reporting, and appeal mechanisms for that Code of Conduct.

C. Each participant must sign and return a copy of the Code of Conduct for the relevant edition of the NPDL-organized tournament prior to participating in the tournament.

XIV.3: DUTIES OF THE EQUITY OFFICER

A. The Equity Officer of the NPDL-TOC shall have the following responsibilities:

1) To form an Equity Committee by selecting at least one or more other individuals as Equity Committee Members, subject to approval by the Board. These Members shall be proposed by the Equity Officer at least 30 days prior to that edition of the NPDL-TOC, shall be approved by the Board at least 14 days prior to the NPDL-TOC, and shall be announced immediately. These Members may, by the designation of the Equity Officer, be deputized to conduct any/all Equity Officer responsibilities and use any/all of the Equity Officer’s powers.

2) To ensure that all participants are made aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Code of Conduct;

3) To review all debate topics for equity issues before topics are provided to debaters for a given round;

4) To hear all Code of Conduct complaints brought up during the NPDL-organized tournament;

5) To make any necessary enforcement orders for breach of the Code of Conduct, per the guidelines provided in the Code of Conduct;

6) To make any necessary enforcement orders for breach of an order issued by the Equity Committee in response to a breach of the Code of Conduct, as allowed by the Code of Conduct;

7) To arrange for the hearing of any appeals filed against the decisions of the Equity Committee; and

8) To make themselves available to participants at the relevant edition of the NPDL-organized tournament for a sufficient amount of time to allow the filing of any Code of Conduct complaints;

9) To notify the tournament director about the filing and resolution of equity complaints, and

10) To report to the Board regarding the completion of these duties.

B. The Equity Officer of any NPDL-organized tournament other than the NPDL-TOC will have no obligation to form an Equity Committee (see A.1), but shall be responsible for all other obligations relevant to that tournament.

XIV.4: POWERS OF THE EQUITY OFFICER

A. The Equity Officer of the NPDL-TOC or any other NPDL-organized tournament shall have such powers as are necessary for them to perform their duties (see 3). These powers shall include but not be limited to the following:

- report conduct to relevant authorities, including but not limited to a Team’s coach, a Team’s affiliated institution and school administration, or law enforcement;

- recommend to the Board that a participant be prohibited from participating in future editions of the NPDL-organized tournaments, or be removed from a position of authority under this Code;

- remove and/or disqualify a participant, judge, coach, spectator, TOC staff, NPDL Board Officer, or any other individual attending or connected to NPDL events from the NPDL-organized tournament; and

- conduct any other such orders as allowed by the Code of Conduct.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, a member school representative cannot be prohibited from attending and voting in a meeting of the members.

XIV.5: APPEALS FROM THE EQUITY COMMITTEE

A. Any party to a Code of Conduct complaint made to the Equity Committee or Officer may appeal from the resolution ordered by the Equity Committee or Officer through an appeals process set out in the Code of Conduct.

B. Any appeals process must involve the hearing of the matter by at least three people, at least two of whom were not involved in hearing the original complaint.

C. The outcome of such an appeal shall be final.

XIV.6: NON-TOURNAMENT COMPLAINTS

A. Complaints related to the NPDL Non-Discrimination Policy and other applicable policies for events arising outside of the NPDL-organized tournaments shall be reported to, investigated, and decided by the Board.

B. The Board shall have the above responsibilities (see 3) and powers (see 4) of the Equity Officer as related to the hearing, investigation, and possible sanctioning of involved parties.

XIV.7: NORMS FOR TOURNAMENT OFFICIALS

A. The Equity Committee, Protest Committee, Board, and other tournament officials shall recuse themselves from hearing any Code of Conduct complaint, protest, or non-discrimination or harassment complaint that they may be unable or be seen to be unable to assess in a manner fair to all parties, including but not limited to reasons of:

- shared past, present, or future school affiliation with a subject or filer of a complaint,

- personal relationship with a subject or filer of a complaint, and/or

- previous coaching relationship with a subject of filer of a complaint.

B. The Equity Committee, Protest Committee, Board, and other tournament officials shall not engage in unethical activities in the course of their duties as tournament officials. Unethical activities include but are not limited to the following:

- sharing nonpublic information about topics that might/will be used for that edition of the NPDL-organized tournament with anyone outside of the Topic Committee or the Equity Committee;

- disclosing the content of or individuals involved in equity complaints, protests, or other confidential requests from tournament participants, to anyone outside the intended scope of the petitioner/initiator of the complaint, protest, or request;

- otherwise abusing the power vested in their positions to alter round outcomes or the experience of tournament participants.

XIV.8: VIOLATIONS BY TOURNAMENT OFFICIALS

A. Violations of Section 7 by a member of the Equity Committee, Protest Committee, Board, or other tournament official shall be reported to, investigated, and decided by the Board.

B. The Board shall have the above responsibilities (see 3) and powers (see 4) of the Equity Officer as related to the hearing, investigation, and possible sanctioning of involved parties.

XIV.9: SANCTIONS

All forms of harassment are prohibited, whether committed by participants, judges, coaches, spectators, TOC staff, NPDL Board Officers, or any other individuals attending or connected to NPDL events. Individuals who are found to have violated this policy will be subject to the full range of sanctions, up to and including disqualification from competing, judging, or attending the TOC, removal from the TOC tournament premises, and reporting to local law enforcement and/or affiliated schools as appropriate.